state, and in turn was one factor which plunged Egypt into
the upheavals of the Second Intermediate Period.

Conquest of Canaan

At this juncture, before discussing the Conquest proper,
one important matter should be mentioned, which raises a
serious problem for the conventional chronology, and in
favour of a drastic revision, viz. the discussions by Yurco
regarding the Karnak reliefs of Merenptah depicting the
same Canaanite campaign recorded in the text of his famous
‘Israel stele’. 18 According to Yurco, these reliefs depict a
victorious campaign through Palestine by Pharaoh Merenptah
(conventionally 1212–1202 BC), with an ‘Israel register’
(fourth scene) which depicts an Israelite army equipped
with chariots having six-spoked wheels—long before (on
conventional chronology) chariotry is attested biblically
as part of Israel’s military technology. 19 Also, the Israelites
wear the same city-style dress as do their counterparts in
Gezer and Ashkelon. Clearly then, an Israelite army able
to engage a pharaoh of Egypt, and field a chariot force in
so doing, attests a coherent Israelite nation—not merely
an aggregation of tribes, and one which has been resident
in the land for a considerable period. Yurco’s observations
have not only created a serious anomaly in the conventional
late-date scheme (remember here that David’s conquests
were accomplished by infantry, not chariotry), but also
point to a much earlier date for Israel’s arrival in Canaan—
although Yurco himself does not realise the full import of
his proposals.

As to archaeological evidence of the Conquest proper,while I will not add to my discussions elsewhere on sites inthe Transjordan and the testimony they bear to the Conquest, 20one point needs to made with emphasis: in Palestine itselfthere is no pattern of heavily fortified, walled cities duringthe Late Bronze (LB) periods, whether in LB I or LB II.This single observation cancels both the conventional LateDate (19th Dynasty, LB II) or Early Date (18th Dynasty, LB I)schemes of those scholars who adopt the existing secularchronology of Egypt, and attempt to match it to the biblicaldata. Yet this network of fortified cities was precisely whatfrightened the Israelites as they contemplated a conquestfrom the Negev region:“Nevertheless, the people who live in the land arestrong, and the cities are fortified and very large … Weare not able to go up against the people, for they aretoo strong for us” (Numbers 13: 28).

“Our brethren have made our hearts melt, saying,
‘The people are bigger and taller than we; and the cities
are large and fortified to heaven’” (Deuteronomy 1: 28;
see also Deuteronomy 9: 1).

However, it is in the earlier, Middle Bronze period (
conventionally 2000–1550 BC), where we do find a system of
heavily fortified cities throughout Palestine. The latter part
of this period, archaeologically Middle Bronze IIIC, has
to be where we place the Conquest. This in turn fits neatly
with an Exodus in the same general period (albeit 40 years
earlier), as argued above.

One final point in this connection is the oft-repeated
scenario of destruction layers in the cities through Late
Bronze Palestine, which on the conventional late-date scheme
are identified with Joshua’s conquest. Even those who adopt
the conventional early-date model have (rightly) objected to
this identification, citing the biblical data:

• According to Joshua 6: 24; 8: 28; and 11: 11–13, only three
cities were burned: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor respectively.

The rest were left on their mounds; 21

• Burning cities was contrary to Conquest policy of living
in the homes and cities of the conquered Canaanites, cf.

Deuteronomy 6: 10–11; 19: 1; and Joshua 24: 13.

Hence destruction or ‘burn’ levels in Israelite cities are
quite irrelevant and precisely not evidence of the Israelite
conquest.

The Amarna Letters and early Israel

The Amarna Letters, discovered in 1887 and thus known
for well over a century, provide a picture of a Palestine
under the control of a range of petty kinglets in a network
of city-states, squabbling with each other, and parleying
with the Egyptian pharaoh. Thus we see Abdi-hepa ruling
in Jerusalem, Milkilim in Gezer, Shuwardata in Gath (?),
Lab’ayu in Shechem, etc. 22 Late-date advocates proclaim
this as proof positive of a pre-Conquest Palestine, 23 where
Canaanite kings are in control of Palestine and Israel not
yet in the picture, while conventional early-date proponents
have not really come to terms with the
evidence of these texts. Some of the latter
still cling to the now untenable theory
that the Habīru of these letters are the
advancing Israelite forces under Joshua,
seen from the opposite end of the stick. 24

However, this neat conclusion is by
no means necessary, for the following
reasons: Figure 2. Karnak relief showing Fourth Battle Scene